Dad Calls Cops on Son to Teach Him a Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead


Recommended Posts

Just my two cents as someone who lived, worked, and been a student on that campus. They were lucky that it ended when it ended, most students are in classes around 10, had it happened 20 minutes earlier there would have been a greater chance of someone getting hit. I think it was a poor decision on both parties for it to end the way it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go on, how many shootouts do american cops have with gangs with fully automatic assault rifles on Americas streets? Stop the hyperbole.

 

Police in America regularly face armed criminals.  Gangs in cities across America frequently use automatic and semi-automatic assault style weapons. These weapons are more common near the Mexican border (and Florida) and in neighboring cities like Los Angeles; however, the same cartel-affiliated gangs can be found in just about every major city in America.

 

The point is - a policeman never knows what he will be faced with on any given day.  Maybe it's a mixed up middle-class white kid trying to get back at daddy; maybe it's a whacked out 18th Streeter or MS-13 wannabe looking to gain street cred by taking out a cop.  Either way, an officer does not know how even a routine traffic stop is going to end - and therefore he has to be ready for anything.

 

Personally, I have a tremendous amount of respect for American law enforcement.  The vast majority of policemen serve with pride and distinction.  They put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe - not for financial gain, but out of a personal sense of duty.  God bless them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... an equivalent to your SWAT teams, just better.  

 

Given the same situation, our cops would have backed off the street pursuit and picked him up later.  If that weren't possible, they'd have used what you call "spike strips" to disable the truck and then blocked him in.  Once the truck was stopped, no guns would be necessary as he wasn't armed.

 

...the shooting is done by a small number of armed officers, possibly even a stationed marksman, and minimal rounds are fired. They will also shoot to disable if possible, because they're ALL expert shots that have to re-certify regularly and spend a lot of time on the range; far in excess of the range time most US cops face.

 

 

The assertion that the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19) of England is any better than the S.W.A.T. units of major American cities is purely speculative.  If anything, the American forces are better adept given their weighted advantage of actual real-world experience.

 

The rest of your statement is pure speculation and conjecture.  What British law enforcement would or wouldn't have done given the scenario is irrelevant (and highly debatable).  That you would have anything more than casual knowledge of the operational tactics of British law enforcement is undeniably questionable.

 

I am also relatively certain you have no idea how much "range time" a British CO19 "expert" puts in or anything about their re-certification requirements.  What is unquestionable is that you possess any knowledge whatsoever of firearm qualification standards of the average American policeman, yet alone their S.W.A.T. counterparts.  In other words, your assertions are completely baseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep referring to "any other country" but the comparison you are trying to make is between the United States and Europe.  Anywhere in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and most of Asia, he would have been killed just as quick - if not a lot quicker.  He was attempting to use his truck as a deadly weapon - the police officers had a right to defend themselves and to protect their lives.

Don't think it is telling that, whenever you try to find countries that America is better than, in terms of violence, rampant religiosity, poor welfare and evolution denial, all you ever have to choose from are the most backward countries of the developing world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to the postings of DocM and several others, I have a pretty good idea of firearm qualification standards in the US.

 

Thanks to a relative being an AFO (Authorised Firearm Officer), I know how often they recertify, how much range time they have, and what kind of training they get.  It's considerably more thorough than anything I've seen posted by DocM and others (who frequently claim they're lucky if they spent ANY time on the range).  Mainly because so few of our cops carry guns, those that DO are trained constantly on proper use so they don't get them taken away.

 

Also, our cops have faced armed terrorists for the last 40 years or so.  You know, the IRA... The people who get rather a LOT of their funding from US citizens; so there's plenty of experience there in handling dangerous situations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to the postings of DocM and several others, I have a pretty good idea of firearm qualification standards in the US.

 

Thanks to a relative being an AFO (Authorised Firearm Officer), I know how often they recertify, how much range time they have, and what kind of training they get.  It's considerably more thorough than anything I've seen posted by DocM and others (who frequently claim they're lucky if they spent ANY time on the range).  Mainly because so few of our cops carry guns, those that DO are trained constantly on proper use so they don't get them taken away.

 

Also, our cops have faced armed terrorists for the last 40 years or so.  You know, the IRA... The people who get rather a LOT of their funding from US citizens; so there's plenty of experience there in handling dangerous situations.

 

So the basis of your knowledge on firearm qualification standards in a foreign country (America) is derived from an anonymous poster on a tech forum on the Internet?  Like I said, baseless.  You are making comparisons without valid knowledge of either of the two things being compared.  Your position is based on emotion rather than facts; and frankly, the reason for injecting a comparison between American and British law enforcement in the context of this discussion is still unknown to me.

 

No offense to DocM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider DocM a very trustworthy source of information. Far more so than you.

 

Hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bleh..another case of "if the person had done what a police officer told him to do, they would still be alive".  When will people learn....you see sirens, it means stop! dont run way, dont fight, dont do anything stupid!!!!! Specially if it makes the police officer think that you are endangering the lives of others or the officers themselves.

 

Again, sad story, but had the kid not run away, he would still be alive....and yeah, while i think the officer acted a bit too violent, i understand why he did it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious.

Arguing ont he Internet is hilarious...amongst other things.

 

You don't have to live in the US to be able to have a well informed discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing ont he Internet is hilarious...amongst other things.

 

You don't have to live in the US to be able to have a well informed discussion.

 

Generally, it helps if you don't live in the US.  US news sources suck, big time. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Merica!

Where if you want something done, you do it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard.

Sucks to be him, guess the dad learned a lesson here too. 

 

Yea, like this kind of thing doesnt happen all over the world.  And saying 'Merica instead of America just makes the person saying it sound uneducated.

 

Anyway, kids own damn fault.  Cops told him to stop, the didnt comply and reved his engine like he was going to take off.  And yes, in a movie maybe the car could of been disabled by a gun shot to the engine.  But then again, its easy to say this kind of stuff if you dont know what you are talking  about, have not been there, and do not know the situation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad mistakes all around.  First mistake was the father calling 911 on his son to "teach him a lesson".  If you call the police to report that someone has committed a felony they are going to attempt to arrest them if given the chance.  Each individual agency has different policies in place for chasing "property felon crimes" such as stolen vehicles versus crimes against person however at the top level pretty much every State/Highway patrol police department will chase a stolen car (felony crime) until the wheels fall off so it's not something to report lightly.

 

Second the kid should have stopped.  That's all it would have took.  He would have been arrested but the father would have likely dropped the charges and nothing would have ended up on his record.  He didn't stop and so due to the circumstances of him not shooting he was shot and unfortunately died.

 

As to a previous poster saying why didn't they use a shotgun, why didn't they use an assault gun, grenade launcher (no kidding), contrary to popular belief every police car does not have a shotgun or large caliber weapon.  A lot of times depending on funding 1 in every 3 cars will have a shotgun or AR style weapon.  As to shooting the engine and disabling the vehicle, previous posters have debated the hell out of the topic but the basic truth is unless you are firing some very high caliber weapons with some excellent shot placement the average vehicle and engine can sustain a lot of bullet damage before they are disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious.

NOT so bloody f'ing hilarious, and FYI police firearms training (or more properly a lack of it) is a huge problem that even the FBI and DoJ are worried about. Training is inconsistent at best, or virtually absent at worst- especially where funding has been cut. This is why police officers are several times as likely to hit an innocent bystander as a licensed civilian.

Ignore at your own peril.

Police shootings of innocents on the rise: http://prospect.org/article/why-are-police-shootings-innocents-rise

>

What research has been done shows big differences between local departments in the quality and quantity of their training and the shooting tests police have to pass to keep their jobs.

That was one finding of a study in the journal Law Enforcement Executive Forum in June. Researcher Gregory Morrison, himself a former officer and firearms instructor, surveyed more than 300 police departments. In more than half of them, if officers failed their shooting tests, they were allowed do-overs?they could just retake the tests with minimal or no remedial instruction. Less than two-thirds required that firearms instructors themselves take refresher trainings. Nearly two-thirds denied their firearms instructors access to the outcomes of investigations of officer-involved shootings?information the instructors could use to improve their training curriculums. The wide latitude in approaches, Morrison?s study concluded, ?raises real concerns about how prepared many police officers are for encounters that reasonably could involve the use or threatened use of deadly force.?

Lack of training puts cops at risk just as much as bystanders?if not more. For example, Morrison says handgun skills are the quickest to deteriorate. He found that the average department had cops practice with their handguns four times a year. That might sound fine until you consider a 2006 FBI study?s finding that those suspected of murdering cops reported training on their handguns 23 times a year, as firearms instructor Dave Grossi points out. Worse, more than half of the departments in Morrison?s study did handgun training only once or twice a year.

Morrison?s study used data he collected in 2008. Training has likely deteriorated even more in the five years since thanks to budget cuts. In a survey released in February by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), 55 percent of the 416 police departments responding reported that money for their training programs had been slashed in 2012 (that was at least better than 2010, when 72 percent reported training cuts). In Sarasota, Florida, police have gotten one hour of firearms training per year for the last several years due to budget cuts, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. That?s down from 64 hours a year in 1997.

>

Satasota: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130327/ARTICLE/130329665

NYC: http://gothamist.com/2012/12/09/report_nypd_gun_training_needs_to_b.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... stop saying ban guns ... or bad cops ... you can just try not to break any laws first !!!

Ban violent criminals.

 

Lets uh, ship them off to some remote island ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattan? (sorry, old movie reference)

Not what I was getting at, but funny nonetheless ;)

 

Haven't seen that movie in forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice scareware posted in this thread. You guys don't get out much I see ;)

 

I don't know what world some of you people live in but its pretty clear these cops were most definitely not at fault. Want a cut and dry explanation why? Here is one:

 

...when is the last time any of you were standing in the collision course of a maniac using a 2 ton wrecking ball of death hell bent at crushing you dead on?

 

Anyone?

 

Silence?

 

Thought so. The internet is such a wondrous place where one can have a wealth of information at your fingertips...and sit back and crucify people for your biased moral high ground. I'd love to see what some of you would "do differently" given the same scenario. I can guarantee you that given the chance you were about to die you would have done no differently...or would some of you like to go to the cop's family and friends and tell them they should have risked their lives to save an out of control criminal. We ought to be thanking these noble souls for stopping him before any innocent people paid the price. I'd love an explanation for the "Don't hurt the poor poor criminal" mentality displayed by some members on this thread and other threads like this. When it comes down to it, the guy made the choice to cross the line and he paid the consequence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't accept that. Committing a crime does not automatically legitimise the use of deadly force. Unfortunately police in the US would rather kill suspects than accept any personal risk - it is cowardice. In any other country he would have been apprehended using non-lethal force. The number of people killed by police in the US is obscene.

Actually it does when the perp is endangering bystanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really upsets me when people think that they can use the police as their personal whipping boy to punish their children or family members. they are not there to be your parents they are there to protect the public not solve household disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it does when the perp is endangering bystanders.

The police aren't bystanders though, they're active participants. Even then I reject the use of deadly force as anything but an absolute last resort, which wasn't the case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police aren't bystanders though, they're active participants. Even then I reject the use of deadly force as anything but an absolute last resort, which wasn't the case here.

That judgement depends on one's perspective, and that of a cop with 2-3 tons of metal heading at him is likely far different than that of someone sitting comfortably behind their monitor grumbling.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.